chem1st Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Then you still have a job. Sounds like an good argument for cutting benefits then. Don't be stupid. A cut in benefits would lead to an increase of crime. Sanctions imposed upon benefits in 1997 have been proven to have led to an increase in crime. (More expense to society than paying the benefits) Say you lose your benefits, and can't get a job, would YOU be happy to work for less than what benefits (classed as the minimum needed to live) pay? Swapping benefits for food vouchers and electric/gas and travel vouchers based upon a person calorie, job interview needs would be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Another Labour voter stuck in the past. The YTS scheme hasn't existed for years. I'm neither a Labour voter, nor stuck in the past. YTS is back, albeit under a different name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobee Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Don't be stupid. A cut in benefits would lead to an increase of crime. Sanctions imposed upon benefits in 1997 have been proven to have led to an increase in crime. (More expense to society than paying the benefits) Say you lose your benefits, and can't get a job, would YOU be happy to work for less than what benefits (classed as the minimum needed to live) pay? Swapping benefits for food vouchers and electric/gas and travel vouchers based upon a person calorie, job interview needs would be better. QUOTE Wouldn't vouchers be easier to copy, just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jobee Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Hasn't Labour already sold you off and effectively shut down the majority of the most needed Post Office network? What do you think of the billions of pounds of a black hole in the Royal Mail pension fund that means that you might not get your works pension? I dread the thought of ever having another Scottish prime minister. Blair and Brown sure knew how NOT to run a country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 Wouldn't vouchers be easier to copy, just a thought. I can't imagine it being a big problem. There would be a stigma to spending the vouchers, and the ability to spend them would be restricted to once/twice a week per shop and certain goods. People can copy and print their own bank notes and they can spend them anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barny_100 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 A cut in benefits would lead to an increase of crime. Sanctions imposed upon benefits in 1997 have been proven to have led to an increase in crime. (More expense to society than paying the benefits) You seem to be proposing we treat the welfare state as some sort of Danegeld distribution system. So personal responsibility and toddler level morals of good and bad are out of the window in your world then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 You seem to be proposing we treat the welfare state as some sort of Danegeld distribution system. So personal responsibility and toddler level morals of good and bad are out of the window in your world then? You don't pay your taxes, you get locked up by the state. If the state doesn't pay enough benefits, people commit crime and need locking up by the state. Benefits of £2.6-£3.1k per year vs a cost of locking them up of £40k+ per year. The state would be robbing itself by reducing benefits. We feed, clothe and house prisoners, which is a lot more than we do for people out of work (often through no fault of their own). Why do people consistently suggest reducing the money of people on JSA, when people on Disability and Pensions get a lot more. Of the £165 billion welfare state, less than £5 billion goes on JSA (even if everyone entitled claimed it!). More money is spent on housing benefit for people to pay the rent to private landlords (often buy to let). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 You seem to be proposing we treat the welfare state as some sort of Danegeld distribution system. So personal responsibility and toddler level morals of good and bad are out of the window in your world then? Danegeld is more akin to the money paid to the Police by the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 You don't pay your taxes, you get locked up by the state. Unless you are Portsmouth FC or are rich enough to avoid them altogether Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barny_100 Posted May 12, 2010 Share Posted May 12, 2010 If the state doesn't pay enough benefits,people commit crime and need locking up by the state. Benefits of £2.6-£3.1k per year vs a cost of locking them up of £40k+ per year. Why do people consistently suggest reducing the money of people on JSA, when people on Disability and Pensions get a lot more. Of the £165 billion welfare state, less than £5 billion goes on JSA (even if everyone entitled claimed it!). More money is spent on housing benefit for people to pay the rent to private landlords (often buy to let). You are proposing we treat it as a protection racket of the "poor" - pure and simple. No right minded person should even consider that a viable way to run a civilised country. I agree totally that we need to make strong cuts in the wider benefits system though and that JSA is a bit of a sideshow in terms of £'s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.